ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ratan K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajeev Gurung and Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent/SECL and Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, through Video Conferencing and Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for intervenors.

2. Since both the writ petitions arise out of a common factual matrix and the issues involved for consideration are same, with the consent of parties, this Court is disposing of these petitions by a common order.

3. I.A. No. 03 of 2023, applications for impleadment have been filed by the applicants - Vijender Consultants Private Limited in WPC No.1633 of 2023 and Prafast Technologies Private Limited in WPC No. 2088 of 2023 as proposed respondent No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, 1908.

4. Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicants through Video Conferencing, submits that the petitioners have challenged the notice for cancellation of tender dated 14.03.2023 issued by respondent SECL, alleging that the respondent SECL has cancelled the tender processes in order to favour the applicants herein. He further submits that the applicants are necessary and proper party in the respective writ petitions, as allegations of mala fides and biasness have been made against the applicants. It is apt to state herein that there is a subsisting equitable interest of the applicant consortium in the subject matter of instant writ petition. Considering the applicants’ consistent involvement in the present matters, the applicants are necessary and proper party to these petitions. He also submits that to place the correct facts and to bring in the kind notice that no favourtism has been shown by respondent SECL, while issuing the notice dated 14.03.2023, whereby the tender process has been cancelled, the applications be allowed and they be impleaded as party respondent. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Prabodh Verma Vs. State of U.P., reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251, wherein it has been held as under :

“28. ….. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondent …..”

5. Mr. Mishra further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. V. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 where the High Court heard the writ petition of an unsuccessful bidder, wherein other bidders were not made party and in appeal by the party, who was not the party before the High Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that in tender matters all bidders should be made party and held that :

“18. Before we conclude, it is necessary to point out that the High Court was of opinion that the eligible bidders were not entitled to be either impleaded in the petition filed in the High Court by the ineligible bidder GYT-TPL JV or were not entitled to be heard. With respect, this is not the appropriate view to take in matters such as the present. There are several reasons for this, one of them being that there could be occasions (as in the present appeals) where an eligible bidder could bring to the notice of the owner or employer of the project that the ineligible bidder was ineligible for additional reasons or reasons that were not within the contemplation of the owner or employer of the project. It was brought to our notice by Afcons Infrastructure in these appeals that GYT-TPL JV did not have any experience in the construction of a viaduct by the segmental construction method and that the translations of documents in Mandarin language filed in the High Court were not true English translations. Submissions made by learned counsel for Afcons Infrastructure in this regard are important and would have had a bear